Agri-environmental and rural development indicators: a proposal · 2002. 9. 26. · 3 Agri-environmental and rural development indicators: a proposal AnjaYli-Viikari1), Helmi Risku-Norja1),

Agrifood Research Reports 5 Agrifood Research Reports 5

Agri-environmental and ruraldevelopment indicators:

a proposal

Environment

Agrifood Research Reports 5

Anja Yli-Viikari, Helmi Risku-Norja, Visa Nuutinen, Esa Heinonen, Reija Hietala-Koivu, Erja Huusela-Veistola, Terho Hyvönen,

Juha Kantanen, Satu Raussi, Pasi Rikkonen,Anu Seppälä and Elina Vehmasto

Met5kansi.p65 7.6.2002, 13:141

MTT Agrifood Research Finland

Agrifood Research Reports 5102 p., 3 appendixes

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL ANDRURAL DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS:

A PROPOSAL

Anja Yli-Viikari, Helmi Risku-Norja, Visa Nuutinen, EsaHeinonen, Reija Hietala-Koivu, Erja Huusela-Veistola,

Terho Hyvönen, Juha Kantanen, Satu Raussi, Pasi Rikkonen,Anu Seppälä and Elina Vehmasto

ISBN 951-729-671-1(Printed version)ISBN 951-729-672-X (Electronic version)

ISSN 1458-509X (Printed version)ISSN 1458-5103 (Electronic version)

www.mtt.fi/metCopyright

MTT, Agrifood Research FinlandAnja Yli-Viikari, Helmi Risku-Norja, Visa Nuutinen, Esa Heinonen, Reija Hietala-

Koivu, Erja Huusela-Veistola, Terho Hyvönen, Juha Kantanen, Satu Raussi,Pasi Rikkonen, Anu Seppälä and Elina Vehmasto

PublisherMTT Agrifood Research Finland, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland

Distribution and saleMTT Agrifood Research Finland, Data and Information Services,

FIN-31600 Jokioinen, FinlandPhone + 358 3 4188 2327, Fax + 358 3 4188 2339

e-mail [email protected] in 2002

Cover pictureYrjö Tuunanen/MTT´s photograph archives

Photo manipulation Oiva Hakala

http://www.mtt.fi/met

3

Agri-environmental and rural developmentindicators: a proposal

AnjaYli-Viikari1), Helmi Risku-Norja1), Visa Nuutinen1), Esa Heinonen1),Reija Hietala-Koivu1),Erja Huusela-Veistola2), Terho Hyvönen2),

Juha Kantanen3), Satu Raussi4),Pasi Rikkonen5), Anu Seppälä1) and ElinaVehmasto1)

1)MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Environmental Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Plant Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland, [email protected], [email protected])MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland, [email protected])MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Agricultural Engineering Research, Vakolantie 55, FIN-03400 Vihti, Finland, [email protected])MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research, PO Box 3, FIN-00411 Helsinki, Finland, [email protected]

AbstractThe present work is a proposal of a set of indicators prepared for the Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry. The indicators are to be used in monitoring theimplementation of the Ministry’s strategy for sustainable use of naturalresources. The goals of the strategy define the issues to be monitored. Inselecting the indicators care has been taken, that the information provided bythe chosen assessment themes and methods is based on reliable research data.

In the beginning of the paper the theoretical framework enabling the choiceof the indicators is constructed. The indicator concept is then introduced. Thegeneral requirements in selecting the indicators as well as their role indecision-making are discussed. The present status of the national andinternational agri-environmental and rural development indicator work isshortly summarised.

The core of the present work is in setting up an indicator system, which isstructured around specific themes. The focus is on the assessment ofagricultural and rural development. At the end, an attempt is made to providea comprehensive picture by considering the mutual inter-linkages betweenthe various indicators.

The urgency to further develop the system approach as well as the indicatorapproach itself as a tool for decision-making is stressed. Many problemsrelate to inadequate and diffuse data available. The scarcity is especiallyaccentuated in case of socio-cultural indicators, but also the environmentaldata are often insufficient and fragmentary. The prerequisite for balanced andcoherent development is that due attention is paid to the various aspects of

mailto:[email protected]

4

sustainability. Future indicator work requires that the assessment methods beimproved, but also that the policy goals are expressed more precisely.

Key words: use of natural resources, sustainable agriculture, agri-environmental, rural development, indicators

5

Maatalouden ja maaseudun kestävänkehityksen indikaattorit: esitys

luonnonvarastrategian seurantaan

AnjaYli-Viikari1), Helmi Risku-Norja1), Visa Nuutinen1), Esa Heinonen1),Reija Hietala-Koivu1),Erja Huusela-Veistola2), Terho Hyvönen2),

Juha Kantanen3), Satu Raussi4), Pasi Rikkonen5),Anu Seppälä1) ja ElinaVehmasto1)

1)MTT, Ympäristöntutkimus, 31600 Jokioinen, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])MTT, Kasvintuotannon tutkimus, 31600 Jokioinen, [email protected], [email protected])MTT, Kotieläintuotannon tutkimus, 31600 Jokioinen, [email protected])MTT, Maatalousteknologian tutkimus (Vakola), Vakolantie 55, 03400 Vihti, [email protected])MTT, Taloustutkimus (MTTL), PL 3, 00411 Helsinki, [email protected]

TiivistelmäTämä julkaisu käsittelee uusiutuvien luonnonvarojen kestävän käytön arvioi-ntimenetelmiä. Indikaattorit on suunniteltu Maa- ja metsätalousministeriönluonnonvarastrategian seurantaa varten.

Aluksi esitellään arvioinnin teoreettinen viitekehys ja tarkastellaan yleisestimaatalouden kestävyyden määrittämistä. Lisäksi käsitellään lyhyestiindikaattoreiden valintaperusteet ja indikaattoreiden merkitys päätök-senteolle. Mukana on myös lyhyt katsaus nykyisin käytössä olevistakansallisista ja kansainvälisistä indikaattoreista.

Indikaattorit on valittu luonnonvarastrategiassa asetettujen tavoitteidenpohjalta. Valinnassa otetaan lisäksi huomioon se, kuinka indikaattoreista onsaatavilla luotettavaa seurantatietoa. Mahdollisuuksien mukaan pyritäänsamanlaiseen tiedonkeruuseen kuin kansainvälisissä s eurannoissa.

Maatalouden seurantaan ehdotetaan 13 teemaa: luonnonvarojen käytöntehokkuus, torjunta-aineiden käyttö ja ympäristöriskit, maaperän laatu,vesistökuormitus, kasvihuone- ja ammoniakkipäästöt, tuotantokasvien ja -eläinten perinnöllinen monimuotoisuus, luonnonvaraisten lajienmonimuotoisuus, maisema, eläinten hyvinvointi, alueellinen tuotantorakenne,maataloustulo, tuotannon jatkuvuus ja laatu. Maaseutukehityksentarkasteluun ehdotetaan seuraavia seitsämää teemaa: maaseututuotteiden japalveluiden käyttö, maaseudun yritystoiminta ja maatalouden monitoimisuus,kuluttajien asenteet ja tietoisuus, alueellinen kehitys ja maaseudunhyvinvointi, maaseutuyhteisöjen resurssit omaehtoiseen kehitykseen,palveluiden saatavuus ja luonnonvaratiedon hallinta. Lopuksi erilliset teematkootaan yhteen, ja luonnonvarojen käyttöä tarkastellaan kokonaisuutena.

mailto:[email protected]

6

Tämä esitys luonnonvaraseurannan teemoista ja indikaattoreista tehtiinnykyisin saatavilla olevan tiedon ja osaamisen perusteella. Indikaattoreidenkäyttöä päätöksenteossa on kuitenkin vielä kehitettävä. Moniaarviointimenetelmiä on parannettava ja tietoaineistojen kattavuutta lisättävä.Suurimmat puutteet ovat sosiaalisen ja kulttuurisen tiedon saatavuudessa,mutta myös maatalouden ympäristöseuranta on vielä osin hajanaistenselvitysten varassa. Luonnonvarojen käyttöön liittyvää systeeminäkökulmaatulee selkeyttää, jotta irrallinen tieto indikaattoreista kertoisi laajemminluonnonvarojen käytön seurauksista.

Avainsanat: luonnonvarat, kestävä kehitys, maatalous, maaseutu,indikaattorit

7

Foreword

The Natural Resources Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestrycommissioned MTT Agrifood Research Finland in January 2001 to prepare afollow-up report for the strategy of the use of natural resources. The basis ofthe work is the compilation of the indicators for the sustainable use of therenewable natural resources published in 1999. The aim of the Ministry is tocouple the indicators firmly with the monitoring the implementation of theMinistry’s strategy. This requires that the interest is focused on the mostrelevant themes, and that the clarity of the interpretation and of the visualpresentation of the results be improved.

The Ministry appointed for the project an executive group, chaired by HeikkiGranholm from the Ministry. The other members are Elina Nikkola also fromthe Ministry and the professors Sirpa Kurppa and Martti Esala from MTT.The specialist members of the executive group are the researchers Anja Yli-Viikari and Jukka Peltola, both from MTT.

Monitoring of the natural resource use requires wide expertise and familiaritywith the cause-effect relationships of the most diverse phenomena. Thespecialists of the various research areas represent this expertise. Themembers of the research group from MTT and their specific area ofresponsibility are:

Esa Heinonen – system analysisReija Hietala-Koivu – landscapeErja Huusela-Veistola – plant protectionTerho Hyvönen – species diversityJuha Kantanen – genetic diversityVisa Nuutinen – soil, water and airSatu Raussi – animal welfarePasi Rikkonen – economyHelmi Risku-Norja – natural resource useAnu Seppälä – socio-cultural aspectsElina Vehmasto – socio-cultural aspectsAnja Yli-Viikari – theoretical framework

In addition to the research group, also the following persons have contributedto the work: Agrifood Research Finland: Katriina Soini, Laura Alakukku,Martti Esala, Riitta Lemola, Outi Manninen, Ritva Mäkelä-Kurtto, AnsaPalojärvi, Jouko Sippola, Jukka Salonen, Hanna-Riikka Tuhkanen, EilaTurtola; Sanni Junnila, Pirkko Laitinen, Risto Uusitalo, Sirpa Kurppa;

8

Finnish Environment Institute: Petri Ekholm, Juha Grönroos, KirstiGranlund, Annamaija Kylä-Setälä, Timo Seppälä, Heli Lehtinen, MikkoKuussaari; Soil Analysis Service: Väinö Mäntylahti; Rural Advisory Centres:Sari Peltonen; Finnish Forest Research Institute: Marjatta Hytönen; PellervoEconomic Research Institute: Raija Volk; Statistics Finland: Yrjö Palttila;Regional Development Foundation: Reijo Keränen, Keimo Sillanpää;University of Oulu: Ilmo Mäenpää, Teija Remahl; Ministry of Agricultureand Forestry: Jaana Mikkola; Plant Production Inspection Centre: Eija-Leena Hynninen; Finnish Museum of Natural History: Timo Pakkala;Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute: Juha Tiainen.

Their help in form of advice, critical comments and discussions is gratefullyacknowledged. The present work contributes to the discussion on assessingthe sustainability of agriculture and rural development and we hope that thediscussion continues.

The Ministry’s strategy covers also forestry and fishery as well as game andreindeer husbandry. The work on agricultural and rural developmentindicators has been done in co-operation with the organisations responsiblefor these activities, but their indicators are not included in this report.

The actual compilation of the report was done by Anja Yli-Viikari, HelmiRisku-Norja and Visa Nuutinen.

Jokioinen, 20 May 2002

Anja Yli-Viikari

Visa Nuutinen

Reija Hietala-Koivu

Terho Hyvönen

Satu Raussi

Anu Seppälä

Helmi Risku-Norja

Esa Heinonen

Erja Huusela-Veistola

Juha Kantanen

Pasi Rikkonen

Elina Vehmasto

9

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 11

2 Framework for assessment of the performance of agriculture andthe rural development .............................................................................. 13

2.1 Background....................................................................................... 13

2.2 Defining the rural renewable resources in a system approach.......... 14

2.3 Sustainability in agricultural production .......................................... 16

2.3.1 Ecological sustainability......................................................... 17

2.3.2 Economic sustainability.......................................................... 20

2.3.3 Social and cultural sustainability ............................................ 22

2.3.4 Summary................................................................................. 24

2.4 Assessment process and the criteria for selecting the indicators ...... 25

2.4.1 Indicators as a tool for adaptive management ........................ 25

2.4.2 Collecting and analysing the data ........................................... 27

2.4.3 Presenting the data and interpreting the indicators................. 28

2.4.4 Summary................................................................................. 29

3 Setting up the indicator system................................................................ 30

3.1 International background.................................................................. 30

3.2 Proposed indicators for agriculture................................................... 32

Theme 1 Use of natural resources in production .............................. 34

Theme 2 Pesticide use and risks ....................................................... 39

Theme 3 Soil quality......................................................................... 41

Theme 4 Loading to watersheds ....................................................... 46

Theme 5 Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions........................... 48

Theme 6 Genetic Diversity ............................................................... 50

Theme 7 Diversity of wild species.................................................... 53

Theme 8 Landscape .......................................................................... 55

Theme 9 Animal welfare .................................................................. 58

10

Theme 10 Regional structure of agricultural production .................. 60

Theme 11 Income changes in agriculture ......................................... 61

Theme 12 Continuation of farming: investments and generationtransfers............................................................................................. 63

Theme 13 Quality management and assurance................................. 64

3.3 Proposed indicators for rural areas ................................................... 65

Theme 1 Use of the rural products and services ............................... 67

Theme 2 Regional development and the welfare of rural areas ........ 70

Theme 3 Rural entrepreneurship....................................................... 72

Theme 4 Rural infrastructure and services........................................ 73

Theme 5 Human resources in rural communities ............................. 74

Theme 6 Consumers awareness ........................................................ 76

Theme 7 Information management ................................................... 78

4 Developing the system approach............................................................. 79

5 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 86

6 References ............................................................................................... 89

7 Appendices ............................................................................................ 103

11

1 Introduction

Agriculture, forestry, game and reindeer husbandry and fishery are practisedunder the supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Thestarting point for these activities are the goals that have been defined for thefuture development and that are expressed in the Ministry’s strategy for theuse of the natural resources.

The first strategy for the sustainable use of rural natural resources in Finlandwas prepared in 1997 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1997a). Althoughin that strategy the focus was on the ecological consequences of the resourceuse, the links to the economic and social development were also pointed out.The strategy has now been revised by taking into the account the recentchallenges, such as the harmonisation of the environmental concerns withinthe EU, the work of the UN Committee for Sustainable Development as wellas the measures required by the international agreements (Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry 2001b)

Information is the central prerequisite in the strategy planning. Accurate andup-to-date data are necessary in setting realistic and meaningful goals for thefuture development as well as in deciding about the appropriate measures toreach the goals. Data are needed also in measuring the progress towards thedefined goals. In the new strategy attention has been paid especially to thedevelopment of the monitoring system. This is where the expertiseknowledge has been called for.

Indicators are an area of growing interest as they provide a tool to handle andto control the complex issues of the societal development. Methodologicallythe formulation of the indicators implies organising and presenting the data ina form that is transparent and comprehensible for the various users. The basisfor monitoring is the preliminary set of indicators, which was published in1999 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1999a). In that report a set of 152indicators for agriculture, game and reindeer husbandry, fishery and watermanagement as well as for rural development was introduced. An extensivegroup of experts representing various research fields and stakeholdersselected the indicators in a participatory process. For the forestry sector, theset of indicators was formulated and implemented as a part of the Finland’snational forest programme (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1999b,Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2000a).

Indicators for the sustainable use of the rural resources have now been testedfor some years, and several serious defects have become apparent. Thepreliminary compilation is far too extensive, the data are still ratherfragmentary and not always very informative as regards to the Ministry’sstrategy goals. The various sectors of the Ministry’s area of responsibility are

12

very heterogeneously represented, and the various aspects of sustainabilityare not adequately addressed. Furthermore, the mutual interdependencies ofthe various indicators have been ignored.

In the present work an effort to overcome the obvious deficiencies is made byfocusing and further developing the indicator work. The monitoring system isalso sharpened by concentrating on the central themes that have beenemphasised in the Ministry’s strategy, and a system approach is adopted inorder to provide a more holistic picture of the various aspects of thesustainability.

The aim is:

1) to define a relevant theoretical framework for assessing the developmentof agriculture and rural areas;

2) to propose a coherent set of indicators with which the performance ofagriculture and the rural development in Finland can be described.

Indicators for agriculture and rural development have emerged in recent yearsalso into the focus of international interest. These issues are emphasised alsoin this work, and the sustainable use of the rural renewable resources ismainly reflected through agriculture. The present work, thus, aims atcontribution to the national and international discussion concerning theindicators and their methodological development. On the other hand, theproposed set of indicators outlined here is to be used as a practical tool inmonitoring, planning and decision-making.

The system approach and the general framework of assessment is firstpresented. The various aspects of sustainability are discussed in the section2.3. The general criteria for selecting the indicators as well as the possibilitiesand the restrictions of the indicators as the source of information arediscussed in section 2.4. The present status of the national and internationalagri-environmental and rural development indicator work is shortlysummarised in the beginning of the section 3. The emphasis in section 3 is insetting up an indicator system, which is explicitly formulated to monitor therealisation of the Ministry’s natural resources strategy. The indicator systemis structured around the specific themes, which have been defined on thebasis of the strategy goals. In section 3.3, the system perspective is adopted,and attention is drawn to the mutual linkages between the proposedindicators. In the concluding chapter the methodological problems areaddressed and the needs for further development are pointed out.

13

2 Framework for assessment of theperformance of agriculture and the ruraldevelopment

2.1 Background

Agri-food sector is a crucially important part of the society, because it is amajor factor affecting the public welfare and health and it also notablycontributes - directly and indirectly - to the national gross product. Securingthe renewal and productive capacity of the natural resources is considered tobe of primary importance and this prioritisation forms the core of theMinistry’s strategy planning.

Agriculture is an economic activity, which heavily relies on the availabilityof the natural resources. During the past few decennia agriculture hasexperienced a profound structural change, which is manifested e.g. indecreasing number of farms and farmers, in increased farm size and regionalspecialisation of the production (Statistics Finland 2000). Inevitably thesechanges have also a considerable impact on the environment and on theviability of the rural areas.

Beside the international trends towards more specialised production, theconcern about the environment has led to quite opposite development withthe interest focusing towards less intensive production, organic productionand smaller production units. At the moment organic production in Finlandcomprises about 7 % of the total agricultural production. With the incentivesof growing demand of organic products and the subsidies allowed for thetransition period the share of the organic production is expected to theincrease also in the future.

Whatever the production mode is, food has to be produced also in the futureand the production will continue to modify the environment and the societyin various ways. Both the Finnish Government and the European Union haveconfirmed sustainable development as the central goal for agriculture(Ministry of the Environment 1998a, CEC 2000). With the perception of theintimate link between agriculture and rural viability the view on the issuesinvolved has become increasingly holistic. Although on a general level thereis a broad agreement on the common goal of sustainable development, thereis a still disagreement on what sustainability actually means and how it ispromoted.

Agriculture has evolved along with the rest of the society towards aninformation society, where the various policy programmes and qualityrequirements guide the activity. Data are produced to plan the programmes,

14

to follow their realisation, and to fulfil the increasing number of national andinternational standards. The data are supposed to increase the control over thedevelopment, but often the overwhelming flow of data appears confusing. Onthe basis of the fragmentary data quite contradictory opinions and measurescan be interpreted as sustainable development.

2.2 Defining the rural renewable resources in asystem approach

The first step of the assessment is to define the system to be investigated. Theconcept ”natural resource” is rarely used in the context of agriculturalproduction, whereas the terms ”environment” and ”environmentalmanagement” have been more commonly used. These concepts differsomewhat as to the approach and the main emphasis. In environmentalissues, the discussion has been dominated by the natural sciences, and thepoint of view is mainly from outside the farming activity. In the “resourceuse” the approach is more tightly fixed to the prerequisites for continuation ofagricultural production and, therefore, also economic and social aspects areinvolved. The economic research has been especially active in developingthese approaches.

However, the production system is crucially dependent on the environmentand the environmental needs and conditions should, therefore, be consideredas an internal component of the system. Furthermore, to obtain a realunderstanding of the system behaviour, it is necessary to usemultidisciplinary approach and to pay attention to the interactions betweenthe various factors and levels.

The agricultural system is defined here starting from its ecological basis (Fig.1). Fertility of the cultivated soils is one of the basic ecological conditions offood production. Cultivated plants assimilate the solar energy and transformit into the primary products, which are further processed within the animalhusbandry into the various animal products. The functioning of theproduction system is secured by the micro-organisms and a wide range ofwild flora and fauna. These together comprise the agro-ecosystem, whichprovides the society with the food products and contributes to the availabilityof the ecosystem services and other public commodities within the society.

15

Fig. 1. The Finnish agri-food system. (Photo: Tapio Tuomela/MTT AgrifoodResearch Finland).

The agro-ecosystems are connected to other ecosystems via various inputsand outputs. Modern agriculture uses external inputs, which are importedfrom outside the local area. Some of the resources are renewable like themanure returned to the fields or the wood materials used in agriculturalbuildings, whereas others, such as fossil energy and mineral fertilisers, arenon-renewable. On the output side, the agricultural products are used as rawmaterials for food, feed, fibre and energy industries. The environmentalimpact is not restricted to the agro-ecosystems, but has wider consequences,as the gaseous emissions and soluble and solid discharges are spread out intothe air, watersheds, groundwater and soils and along the food chains.

The economic and social conditions largely dictate the extent and the patternsof the exploitation of the resources and, therefore, in the agricultural systemsthe ecological processes are interwoven with the economic and socialdevelopment. The resource use is partly controlled administratively, butultimately it is determined by the market demand, which depends on theconsumption patterns and which is constantly modified by the cultural andtechnological changes. Altogether, the agri-food chain is a complex network,

SOCIETY(5 181 115 consumers )

SOCIETY(5 181 115 consumers )

PROCESSING AND RETAILING

FARMING (83 708 enterprises)

Economic, social and technological driving forces

Flow of rural products and services

Agricultural soilsCultivated plantsand productionanimalsWild flora andfauna/ecosystemservices

NATURAL RESOURCES(agricultural landscape 2 129 441 ha)

16

in which the farmers, processing and marketing enterprises, consumers aswell as administrative, research and educational institutions each play a role.Sustainable use of the resources requires that there be, at every level of thesystem, a common view on what sustainable development means and how itis promoted. System dynamics have to be accounted.

The Ministry’s strategy emphasises also the rural development perspective.Agriculture and the rural development are regularly studied apart from ofeach other, and they have also been developed as separate sectors of thesociety. However, rural development is intimately interlinked withagriculture. The origin of natural resources is in the countryside and thehuman knowledge as how to manage these resources is also rooted in thecountryside.

For to conclude, in this work the term ”natural resource” is understood in avery broad meaning comprising not only the raw materials of the production,but also the ecosystems as the source of the raw materials and as the target ofmultiple human measures and interactions.

2.3 Sustainability in agricultural production

The concept “sustainable development” (SD) was first introduced to theinternational forum in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission on SustainableDevelopment. SD was defined as “a progress that meets the needs of thepresent generations without compromising the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs” (WCED 1987). During the 1990’ies the idea ofsustainability has penetrated practically through all levels and sectors of thesocieties, inclusive agriculture and the food production.

The concept has contributed to the environmental discussion in several ways.It has pointed out the urgent need to extend all planning over long timehorizons and it emphasises responsibilities towards the future generations.Environmental issues have been brought also to a broader framework bytaking into account the economic and social aspects. Furthermore, the debateon sustainability has drawn the attention to the global nature of theenvironmental issues although, at the same time, the necessity of the localactions in tackling the problems is emphasised.

The term “sustainability” is very general and rather vaguely defined, which isseen also as the main weakness of the concept. The researchers are stilldebating about the content of the definition. In the political rhetorics SD hasbeen successfully used for promising good for everyone without the necessityof making any commitments. The critics claim, that much more could havebeen achieved with a more precisely defined and concrete concept.

17

In spite of the criticism, the sustainability concept provides a basis for thediscussions concerning the environment and the development. However,when discussing the sustainability issues also the restrictions of the termshould also be born in mind.

For the first, all the needs of the future generations cannot be foreseen nor isit realistic to set fixed goals and to assume them to hold out over generations.Extending the time horizon means inevitably increasing the uncertainty(Pearce 1999). It has been suggested that the planning for the future shoulddeal more with the qualitative questions and that the main focus should be onmaintaining the ability to manage with the future problems. Adaptivemanagement procedures leaning on the past experiences and respondingappropriately should be adopted (Holling et al. 1997, Haila & Jokinen 2001).

Secondly, the environmental problems and the ways to solve them haveproven to be very variable in different situations. It is not possible to definesustainability in a way, which would be universally true and which would, atthe same time, provide precise operational guidelines.

Thirdly, the decisions on what is sustainable, for example regarding the useof the rural resources, are essentially value-related choices intermingled withmultiple interests. Making these choices implies trade-offs between thosewho benefit and those who loose. The choices should be transparent so thatthe values and options behind them are visible and the choices are not blurredby the overwhelming sustainability rhetorics.

Fourthly, within the sustainability concept three basic elements - ecological,economic and socio-cultural - are embedded. Paying attention to each ofthese and applying the system approach, the concept provides a usefulframework within which the overall impact of the resource use can bedescribed. Within this broad framework, it is necessary to pinpoint also moreprecise questions and to use more precise terms and concepts.

In the following, the ecological, economic and social aspects are consideredseparately. However, it should be borne in mind that achieving an overallsustainability requires simultaneous development along each of the threelines.

2.3.1 Ecological sustainability

The ecological sustainability deals with nature and its ability to cope withpressures caused by human activities. The main concerns have been thedepletion of the natural resources, the deterioration of the environment andthe loss of the biodiversity.

18

Among the early warnings that brought into the public awareness theecological limits of the Earth was the book “Silent spring”by Rachel Carson(1962). This was followed by the report of the Club of Rome, whichemphasised that the resource base of the human existence is rapidlyexhausted by the continuously increasing consumption and demand coupledwith the exponential growth of human population (Meadows et al. 1972).With the discovery of new reserves, technological development andsubstitution of the materials the threat of the raw materials exhaustion provedto be premature. Instead, the modern society is facing the problems of theenvironmental deterioration and the loss of the biodiversity. This shifted theinterest to the “end-of-pipe” thinking. In Finnish agriculture, the nutrientloading of the watersheds emerged in recent years as the majorenvironmental problem, and a number of protection measures such asimproving storage of manure, restrictions on fertilisation and creating bufferzones along waterways have been initialised.

However, there is an increasing awareness, that in addition to the outputs atthe end-of-pipe, also the input side of the economy has to be accounted for.The measures of the society aiming at relieve the environmental burden arenot adequate unless the level of the overall materials use is also reduced. Thisis framed out in the Fifth Action Programme on the Environment andSustainable Development in the EU (CEC 1993):

”the flow of substances through the various stages of processing,consumption and use should be managed as to facilitate and encourageoptimum reuse and recycling, thereby avoiding wastage and preventingdepletion of natural resource stock: production and consumption of energyshould be rationalised; and consumption and behaviour patterns of societyshould be altered.”

SD means adjusting the production and consumption patterns to the carryingcapacity of the Earth. This requires that the world-wide materials throughputbe halved within the next decades. By reducing the volume of the extractedraw materials, the environmental impact is relieved both at the input andoutput side of the production. This is because the extraction directlyinterferes with the functioning of the ecosystems, and because sooner or laterthe extracted raw materials are returned back to nature, usually in an alteredform and in wrong places (Schmidt-Bleek 1998). Because at the same timethe aim is to improve the standard of living in the developing countries, themain responsibility lies upon the industrialised countries. On the generallevel, the attempts to cut down the resource use have been expressed as theFactor-goals. In the industrialised countries the use of the natural resourceshas to be reduced to one tenth compared to the situation today. The same goalcan be reached by decreasing the raw materials and energy input of theproduction, increasing the production per unit input or by carrying out both

19

measures simultaneously (Factor 10 Club 1997, Lovins et al. 1997,Weizsäcker et al. 1997).

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development first introduced in1992 the ecoefficiency-concept (WBCSD 2001). Ecoefficiency-thinking isalso thinking in terms of the whole production chain. Improvingecoefficiency means lowering the environmental burden without decreasingthe human welfare or the profitability of the production (OECD 1997,Ministry of Trade and Industry 1998).

The essence of ecoefficiency is to produce more out of less. Applied toagriculture, ecoefficiency means production of nutritionally better food byusing less inputs and by reducing the environmental burden. The efforts toimprove ecoefficiency can be concretised with the Factor-goals. Thefeasibility to realise the Factor-goals within the food chain has beeninvestigated in Sweden. The results show that, by directing the measures tothe whole chain, it is fully possible to improve the efficiency of the resourceuse by several factors without considerable changes in the presentconsumption behaviour (SEPA 1999a).

However, assessing the ecological sustainability from the data on materialsuse, with the focus either on the input or on the output side of the production,is not enough. Ultimately ecological sustainability depends on the ecosystemviability and on the availability of the ecosystem services. These includefactors such as maintenance of fertile soils, nutrient recycling, detoxificationand assimilation of wastes, sequestration of carbon dioxide, biotic regulationand maintenance of genetic information. The agro-ecosystems contribute tothe availability of these functions, but also their own internal structure,resilience, regeneration and productivity rely on these life-supporting bio-physical processes (Daily 1997).

The agro-ecosystem and its functions at the interface of the natural and socio-economic systems is shown in Fig. 2. The present trend of the modernagriculture towards large-scale and one-sided production with increasingregional specialisation is crucially dependent on the external inputs, mineralfertilisers and fossil energy. This causes problems both within and outside theagro-ecosystems. The environmental consequences of the unsustainableagricultural practices are seen as losses of biodiversity, decreasing fertility ofthe cultivated soils, eutrophication of the watersheds and emissions of thegreenhouse gases. A prerequisite for the ecologically more sustainableagriculture is to decrease the overall materials use and to relieve theenvironmental burden of the production. In this way also the viability andproductivity of the agro-ecosystems is maintained and the availability of safeand healthy agricultural products as well as public commodities is secured.These are the issues that have emerged in the recent sustainability discussions(Kloppenburg et al. 1996, Helenius 2000).

20

Fig. 2. Foodsystem and its functions at the interface with other ecosystems.

2.3.2 Economic sustainability

Within the border conditions of the ecological sustainability, there is still arange of possibilities to provide the society with food and other rural productsand services. The economic approach stresses the efficiency of theproduction. In optimising the efficiency the various production alternativesare weighed against the profitability of the production and its welfare effects.

At the region and enterprise level, improving efficiency means increasedcompetitiveness. Economically viable firms can better take into the accountthe requirements of the customers and adjust their production accordingly.The efficiency is likely to lower the price of the products and it, thus, benefitsalso the citizens.

The functioning of whole food systems is in Finland organised by privateenterprises. To guarantee the continuation of the production the enterpriseshave to be profitable. The prerequisite of the profitability is efficiency. Thequestion is, however, not that simple, because agriculture produces also anumber of public commodities for the society and it contributes to the

Food system

Consumption

Production

Agro-ecosystem

Energy flow

Material input(water,nutrients,organic matter,etc.)

Material output(wastes, emissions)

-

Ecosystem

Cycling of materials

MAINTENANCEOF STOCKS

MAINTENANCE OFPRODUCTIVITY

REGENERATION OFTHE STRUCTURES

DECREASINGENVIRONMENTALBURDEN

21

availability of the ecosystem services. Profitability of the farming enterprisesdepends on how the society wants to arrange the food production and to whatextent the environmental and social needs are emphasised. The degree oftheir appreciation is reflected in the amount of compensation given to thefarmers. The amount of compensation that farmer receives is also a question,which relates to distribution of the welfare within the society. In this respect,the economic and social aspects of the sustainability approach each other.

The efficiency requirements in agriculture have to be balanced with the goalsof the overall societal development. Maximum efficiency in monetary termsmay provide the citizens with low food prices but, at the same time, it mayresult in increased environmental burden and in deprivation of the farmers.This causes additional environmental and social costs for the society, whichshould also be accounted for.

The current economic research is, among other things, interested in therepercussions of the ecological and social needs of the society on the marketsystem. In Finland, there are two administrative programmes, which arespecially directed to balance the current market system. The compensationthe farmers are entitled to for providing the society with the environmentalservices and public commodities is considered within the Finnish Agri-environmental Programme (FAEP). The aim of the National QualityProgramme is to guarantee the quality of the agricultural products and toproduce objective information to enable the citizens to compare the quality-price relationship within the food markets.

The basic question could be addressed also in terms of assessing the qualityof the economic growth in agriculture. One school of the economists pointout that the liberation of the markets and globalisation of the economiesbrings about economic growth and that the economic welfare is again theprerequisite to satisfy the environmental and social needs of the society.Rational behind the argument is that with increased productivity andeconomic wealth, more funds can be released also for improving theenvironment (Dragun & Tidsell 1999). However, the idea of unlimitedgrowth within a limited planet is contradictory. To avoid the overexploitationof the natural resources and the continuously increasing pressure on theenvironment, the focus should be shifted from the quantitative to thequalitative growth. Also in agriculture it is important to recognise thosedevelopment paths that lead to maximum economic growth with minimumenvironmental and social costs.

Quality of the growth may be assessed by considering the maintenance of thecapital stocks. Economic growth should base on the profits of the capitalwhile preserving the capital. Sustainability approach should comprise as wellthe social and natural as the economic forms of capital (Pearce 1999, Pearce& Warford 1993). However, it has been argued, whether trade-offs between

22

the various forms of capital could be acceptable and possible withoutdepriving the future generations their options to equal welfare. A fairlycommon view is that the exhaustion of the natural resources is not a realthreat because, to an extent, the exhausted raw materials can be substitutedwith the technological innovations. Supporters of the idea of ”strongsustainability”, by contrast, argue that sustainability implies that the naturalcapital stocks are preserved and that they are treated as a separate, non-substitutable category (Atkinson et al. 1997).

The ecological economists provide another way to evaluate the quality of theeconomic development. They argue that in the long-term agriculturaldevelopment it is essential to find the balance between the increasingspecialisation of the production and the maintenance of the diversity of theproduction structures. Increased competition will decrease the diversity ofthe economical systems as it does in the ecological systems (Perrings 1996,Rammel & Staudinger 2000). Under the circumstances of competition thesystem structures tend to become increasingly specialised. The specialisedstructures are vulnerable, because their resilience and their ability to adapt tothe changing circumstances is lowered.

2.3.3 Social and cultural sustainability

Social and cultural issues are the third supporting corner of the sustainabilityconcept. Although the core of the definition for SD is the human well-being,so far, surprisingly little attention has been paid to these aspects. A possibleexplanation is that welfare is a rather broad and vaguely defined concept. Theissues are difficult to describe with quantitative key figures, the less tosubordinate the decision-making to these figures. Social and cultural issuesshould rather be studied in qualitative terms allowing also the plurality of thevalues and perspectives.

The basis for the social sustainability was laid by the Brundtlandcommission, which stressed the right of everyone to equal opportunities forwelfare, both in temporal and spatial terms (WCED 1987). The goal iscommonly accepted and, in the recent decennia, both the social and economicresearch has been concerned in comparing and measuring the extent ofhuman welfare. However, there are no easy ways to compare the welfare ofthe various nations or groups of people with different historical and culturalbackgrounds. Human beings have the same basic needs concerning the foodand shelter as well as the identity, freedom and self-esteem, but these needsare culturally bound, and to adequately satisfy them means different things atdifferent times and in different cultures. The research has mostly beenconcerned with the material standard of living and its changes; it has largelyfailed to describe and to interpret, how the standard of living is qualitativelyexperienced in different times and in different cultures.

23

In the agricultural context, the key question is the distribution of welfarebetween the rural and urban areas. In recent years along with the socialprocesses of urbanisation, many of the rural structures and services havedisappeared. To secure their livelihood people have moved to the urbanareas. At the same time, the remaining rural population is growing older andthe viability of the rural communities diminishes both in economic and socialterms. However, the natural resources and the knowledge how to use them,remain in the rural areas. One of the key questions of the societaldevelopment is to what extent the centralisation process and the consequentdepopulation of the rural areas can be regarded as acceptable.

The welfare of the rural population creates also economic competitiveness forthe rural areas. When the rural population and the entrepreneurs feel theirown life secure and comfortable, more human resources can be released forinnovations, and the flexibility to respond to the challenges of theinformation society is increased.

The relevant question as regards the socio-cultural sustainability ofagriculture is the society’s ability to manage the use of the natural resources.Agenda 21 states out that sustainability is basically a process of change,which is guided by the human goals, awareness and values (Ministry of theEnvironment 1993). In order to improve sustainability there has to be acommon social awareness of the present day situation. The goals for thefuture development are based on these common values. Handling thecomplex issues requires that the societies develop new models of actions.This takes place in the process of social learning, which is essential to meetthe challenges of sustainability (Kloppenburg et al 1996, Bryden &Shucksmith 1998, Pretty 1998, Haila & Jokinen 2001). Social learning meansalso that, in addition to the assumptions explicitly shaping their ownunderstanding, the actors recognise also the assumptions and values of otherstakeholders. This allows collective negotiation about the meanings anddefinitions, and forms therefore, the basis for the subsequent policydevelopment (Handmer et al. 2001).

To find the appropriate solutions requires human, social and cultural capital.Human capital comprises all the recorded forms of human knowledge, bothscientific and the local silent knowledge, which is founded on the sociallearning. Social capital means ability of the people to co-operate and toestablish social networks of trust. Cultural capital is the identity of thecommunities, and it is based on their common values and past experiences.

The concept of participation is also strongly emphasised in the sustainabilitycontext. Sustainable use of the rural resources cannot be planned andimplemented by the authorities without the participation of the people, whomake the actual decisions in their every day life (Edwards et al. 1993). Onlythe stakeholders have the relevant knowledge concerning themselves, and

24

they also ultimately bear the consequences of the problems. Plurality of thevalues and interests, provided by the stakeholders, offers several possibilitiesto solve the problems. However, increasing the level of participationincreases also the expenses of planning and renders the decision makingmore difficult. The balance between the participative bottom-up and theadministrative top-down models, has to be found in each situation.

Dealing effectively with the sustainability issues, requires also sufficientlystable institutional structures. This is an important aspect, because it securesthe coherence of the long-term development. Institutional stability has evenbeen suggested to present the fourth dimension of the sustainability concept(Hinterberger et al. 1997).

2.3.4 Summary

Sustainability approaches, which have been discussed here, are summarisedin the Table 1.

Table 1. Some key approaches for assessing sustainability in agriculture.

Ecological aspects:• maintaining the stocks of the natural resources• minimising the environmental burden• maintaining the ecosystem viability and ecosystem services• securing the availability of the rural products and services

Economic aspects:• optimising the social welfare with efficient use of the resources, both

in production and in environmental management• maintaining the profitability of the producing, processing and

retailing enterprises within the agri-food chain• securing the quality of the economic growth; ecoefficiency,

maintenance of the capital stocks and the resilience of the economicstructures

Social and cultural aspects:• securing equal opportunities for welfare in the rural and urban areas• social learning in managing the natural resources• promoting participation• developing appropriate institutional conditions for sustainable use of

natural resources.

Ecological, economic and social goals have their own nature and rational, butthey also have much in common. In each of these systems, there appears tobe a continuous struggle between the short term need for increasing

25

efficiency and specialisation and the long term need for preserving thediversity, which enables the systems to adapt to the changing circumstances.

Another essential feature is the regeneration of the system structures. Theecological sustainability depends on the natural capital and this relies on thereproductivity of the species and on the regeneration of the ecosystemstructures. The economic systems require investments to maintain thematerial capital, and in the social systems the transfer of knowledge isnecessary for maintaining the human capital.

The questions associated with the use of the natural resources are holistic. Inorder to find a tolerable balance between the ecological, economic and socio-cultural aspects, the questions have to be evaluated simultaneously fromthese different perspectives. Only then the sustainability concept can betranslated into the praxis.

The operational sustainability goals for the Finnish agriculture have beenspecified in the Ministry’s strategy (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry2001b). In the following, the focus is on these goals and on the indicators thatare necessary to follow up the progress towards the defined goals. Thegeneral criteria for selecting the indicators as well as the possibilities and therestrictions of the indicators as the source of information are first discussed.

2.4 Assessment process and the criteria forselecting the indicators

2.4.1 Indicators as a tool for adaptive management

The purpose of an indicator is to convey information in a simple, concise andeasy-to-interpret manner (Fig. 3). The term” indicator” refers to a datum, orto a value derived from a set of data, that provides key information for thedecision-making about the investigated phenomenon. The significance of theindicators extends beyond that direct value of the datum itself. This meansthat the indicator should manifest - indicate to - some larger phenomenonthan what it itself represents (Dappert et al. 1997, Hakanen 1999, OECD1999. The data need to be comprehensible for various users. The users of theagri-environmental indicators are: 1) the policy makers, who set out thepolitical priorities, 2) the authorities, who plan and implement the measuresto meet the goals, 3) the actors of the system, who make the final decisionson the resource utilisation.

26

Fig. 3. Indicators are key figures, which are based on extensive research andbroad understanding of the phenomenon at issue.

In a policy process, such as the ministry strategy planning, the role of theindicators is to provide information on the consequences of the politicaldecisions. The indicators help to transform the raw data into a form thatfacilitates the decision-making and the managing the complex agriculturaland environmental issues. On the basis of this follow-up information thegoals for the future and the measures to reach the set goals can be targetedmore precisely. Deeper understanding of the reasoning behind the decision-making leads to more specific assessment methods and to new indicators.Thus, this is a continuously developing process with more precisemeasurements and better management. In managing the use of naturalresources this kind of adaptive management is especially important as thesystem is highly complex and the decision-making is predisposed to anumber of uncertainties.

Basically, the main restriction of the indicator approach is that the indicatorsdescribe only what is happening and to what extent. However, the decision-making requires that also the processes behind the described phenomena beunderstood. Also the interrelationships between the various indicators at thesystem level have to be considered. Indicator data need to be developed

Key information fordecision-making

THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGEAND MONITORING SYSTEMS

INDICATORS

Research results

27

within a framework, which adequately represents the system underexamination (OECD 1999).

Different kinds of classifications e.g. Pressure-State-Response model (OECD1999) have been proposed in order to describe the large systems morecomprehensively. So far the indicator sets have been at a rather general leveland the attempts to deal with the system dynamics have been largely ignored.In formulating new sets of indicators one of the main challenges is todescribe the mutual interdependencies of the various indicators and theoverall system dynamics.

The data are produced by specific methods, which are open to uncertaintiesand misunderstandings. In the following, the main methodological choicesaffecting the final data quality are shortly discussed.

2.4.2 Collecting and analysing the data

Data availability. One of the common requirements is that theimplementation of the indicators should be based as far as possible on theexisting statistics. In Finland, there is plenty of information available on theagricultural practices and their economic consequences. The statistics,therefore, provide a wide data basis, that can be utilised in formulatingindicators for various purposes. However, the availability of environmentaland socio-cultural data may be more limited.

The readily available environmental data are often based on fieldinvestigations. They are derived from certain regions in Finland and thespatial and temporal coverage is, therefore, restricted. Updating the data,which require collecting and analysis of the field samples, is very expensive.Recently, approaches based on the modelling of the management activitiesand on the use of the production inputs have been developed to obtainenvironmental data. For example the nutrient leaching can be studied bytaking water samples or by modelling the farming activities. Both approacheshave their own sources of uncertainties, and in future, probably the bestresults are obtained by using them in combination.

As to the social and cultural issues there is a clear dichotomy on the dataavailability. Plenty of statistical data are available on the topics such asemployment, health care, education and demographic changes, which are inFinland institutionally supervised. On the other hand, the more qualitativeissues, such as the rural-urban relations, social networks, social learning andcultural changes have been considered only occasionally in few, spatially andtemporally limited case studies.

28

Data quality. Usually the raw data have to be processed before it can be usedin the decision-making. In analysing the data, a number of choices are made,and these influence the quality of the final results. The first question to beconsidered is the representativity of the results; to what extent the results canbe generalised and what kinds of uncertainties are associated with them. Insome issues such e.g. the farm incomes, the data are collected yearly and thestatistics cover all the farms. The data are, thus, fairly reliable. In other cases,e.g. the nutrient leaching caused by the agriculture, the situation is quitedifferent. This is because the extent of leaching depends on the interplay ofseveral factors, which are very different in different places and at differenttimes.

Among the social indicators the data quality issues are the most difficult. Forexample, the quality management in agriculture can be describedquantitatively by counting the number of the quality contracts. However, thedegree of personal commitment and shared responsibility in food chainshould be also regarded. Deriving this kind of data and evaluating theirreliability, is much more complicated than the quantitative measuring of thephysical phenomena.

The quality of the data depends also on the degree of the data aggregation.Compared to the very detailed data, the aggregated data are easier to handlein decision-making. However, by aggregating the data part of the informationis inevitably lost. For example, the Total Material Requirement (TMR) sumsup the weights of very different materials and the link between a specificenvironmental impact and its cause is lost. The Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)uses a different approach, the environmental impact of the various phases ofthe production are made commensurate by using specific weighingprocedures. Whatever the approach is, it is essential that the methodologicalchoices associated with the data, are transparent and the major uncertaintiesof the approach are presented. This allows the users themselves to evaluatethe reliability of the information provided by the indicators.

Costs of the data. Also the costs of collecting and analysing the data have tobe taken into account. Usually the costs increase rapidly with the improvedquality and coverage. The sound decision-making is based on optimisationbetween the adequate amount and quality of the data and the costs ofacquiring those data.

2.4.3 Presenting the data and interpreting the indicators

Indicators are tools for communicating the data to people with differentoccupational and educational backgrounds. The results have to be presented,therefore, in a visually clear form, preferably graphically. The essential

29

aspects of the investigated phenomenon should be outlined with as smallnumber of indicators as possible.

Indicator report should provide also a meaningful interpretation of thepresented figures and numbers. The data can be informative as such or thedevelopment trends can be revealed by examining time series data or bycomparing the performance between regions and countries. Often averagesare used, but in some cases, the variation is more informative. More specificindicators are obtained by interlinking the data from various sources, e.g. theenvironmental data with the production volumes, the productive land area ornutritional content of the food providing thus information relative to somevariable.

However, these kinds of presentations do not tell, how far the present daysituation is from the desired state. Sometimes it may be necessary to set up atarget level to describe the meaning of the changes for the stakeholders.

Setting of the target levels for indicators is a phase, where research results areinterwoven with political and ethical claims. At this point, the researcher’scontribution is to present background knowledge about the phenomenon andabout the plausible effects of the alternative management practices. Feasibledevelopment, appropriate measures and a realistic time span for progress isdefined on the basis of this information.

Defining target levels is a political question, because the level depends on theprioritised strategy goals. For example, the quality of the agricultural soil canbe assessed in terms of maintaining the productivity. This requires, amongother things, an adequate nutritional level for the cultivated plants to grow.However, the soil quality may be also considered by minimising the nutrientleaching, which may result in a different target level.

The sustainability issues are often many-faceted. They are also subject touncertainties, because of the interplay of several factors that contribute to thedevelopment. Therefore, setting up the target levels depends essentially onthe desired strategy goals, and several controversial approaches are possible.In decision-making the choices require mutual negotiations and a balancebetween the conflicting interests. Ultimately, the playroom for the decision-making is restricted because of the limited availability of the resources.

2.4.4 Summary

In selecting the indicators attention has to be paid to the relevance, feasibilityand availability of the data. The indicators should reflect the impact of theagricultural activities. The goals of the agricultural and environmental policydefine the relevance of the issues to be monitored, the feasibility is increasedby applying a system approach and by considering the mutual interlinkages

30

between the various indicators. A practical requirement is that reliable data atappropriate aggregation level are available or can be collected at reasonablecost.

3 Setting up the indicator system

3.1 International background

The national indicators of Finland should be in line with the internationalappraisals. The assessment of the environmental performance of agriculturehas been for some time in the focus of the international attention, but it is stilla fairly young field of research. Developing the indicator approaches wereaccelerated by the United Nations meeting in Rio de Janeiro, where the needfor monitoring the development were specially highlighted (Ministry of theEnvironment 1993, UNCSD 1996).

The internationally used agri-environmental and socio-economic ruralindicators are compiled in Appendix 1. OECD was among the first to start todevelop the assessment methods for agriculture in the early 1990’ies. Thepreliminary results have been recently presented as an internationalcomparison of the environmental performance of agriculture (OECD 2001).Agriculture is described with 29 indicators, which cover the topics of farmmanagement, use of natural resources and environmental impact ofagriculture. Also some socio-economic indicators on the changes in farmfinancial resources as well as data that link the agriculture to the broadercontext as part of the society are presented.

The European Commission has also been also active in this field.Environmental assessment methods have been developed in collaborationbetween the Directorates General for Agriculture and Environment,EUROSTAT, the Joint Research Centre (ISPRA) and the EuropeanEnvironment Agency. The EC indicators have been formulated with theprimary aim to monitor the effects of the implementation of the FifthEnvironmental Programme and to integrate the environmental requirementsinto the Common Agricultural Policy - CAP (CEC 1999b, EEA 1999, 2000).

So far, the commission has proposed its own set of environmental indicatorsfor agriculture and has outlined a preliminary framework for selecting thesocial and economic indicators. Especially the possibilities and the methodsto integrate the statistical and administrative data with the land useinformation have been actively explored. The report on agriculture,environment and rural development presents the current statistics on theseissues (CEC 1999a, 2000, 2001a, 2001b).

31

The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), European Centrefor Nature Conservation (ECNC), World Bank, FAO and several singlenations have also contributed to the development of the agri-environmentaland rural indicators (FAO 1998, Bryden et al. 2000, MAFF 2000, McRae etal. 2000, Wascher 2000, World Bank 2000, WWF 2000, Bryden 2001).

In the international assessment the issues are usually discussed at a verygeneral level. Also a large variety of approaches and assessment methods isstill used. One of the major problems in the multinational appraisals has beenthe availability of the data. This has resulted in an inadequate coverage and itaffects also the quality of the results. Comparisons between the variousindicator works are, therefore, not necessarily unambiguous.

A practical example of the interpretative pitfalls is the way the biodiversity ofthe Finnish agricultural landscapes is presented in recent OECD report(2001). In the report it is stated that “the share of birds that uses agriculturalland as habit” is 10 % in Finland. At first glance, the figure appears to bequite low compared to that in the other countries. It should be, however,noted that the figure actually tells about the diversity of the Finnishlandscape, where there are plenty of other kinds of habitats available for thebirds. The overall level of information regarding the biodiversity remainspoor, as this data represent the only figures available on the Finnish agro-ecosystems.

The social aspect of the sustainability has been brought into the focus onlyrecently, and the related indicators are especially poorly defined. Measuringthe social and cultural performance of the nations is not a simple task,because they depend on the local situations and because each country andregion has its own historical background (Soini 2000). At the moment, themain challenge is to find the appropriate themes, with which the societaldevelopment can be adequately described. OECD and EC have adopted herean approach of broader rural development (OECD 2001, Bryden et al. 2000,Bryden 2001, CEC 2001b.

Besides the methodological questions, setting up the indicator systems isinevitably also a matter of international agreements and, therefore, a politicalprocess. Ideally, the priorities are set at the policy level. The informationprovided by the selected indicators should then reflect the progress towardsthe set goals as precisely as possible. In practice, the politically definedsustainability goals are quite abstract and general. This means that the issuesare focused and the actual decisions are made only during the assessmentprocess. At this stage the opposite national interests may arise. Instead ofobjectively weighing the choices against the defined common goals, theindicator work may become an instrument of political power. The basicchoices should be made at the political level when the goals for the overalldevelopment are agreed upon. International co-operation requires concrete

32

and precisely defined goals that provide a sound basis for assessment andmonitoring.

In conclusion, the international indicators do not yet provide adequate andreliable information for the decision-making. Common understanding islacking and conceptually and practically satisfactory sustainability indicatorsare still under development. The assessment methods and the interpretationof the results have to be developed further within a system framework and ininternational co-operation to improve the comparability of the data. This isthe prerequisite to attain a common agreement and acceptance on what theresults tell. In addition, indicators that provide information about the specificlocal circumstances are needed as tools for the national decision-making.

3.2 Proposed indicators for agriculture

In selecting the indicators for monitoring the Ministry’s strategy the topicswere first outlined. The currently used national and international indicatorswere scrutinised (Appendix 1). Also the data availability as well as thequality and the costs of the data collection were discussed. These were thecriteria when choosing among the various data sources and analysis methodsthe most suitable for the present proposal. The total number of indicators waskept as low as possible without losing the multiple aspects of agriculturalsustainability. The management activities are not especially highlighted here,because the impact of the measures are specific to the circumstances andcannot be really evaluated at national or international level. The focus in thiswork is, instead, on the state indicators. The final themes and the proposedindicators are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. The themes and the proposed indicators to be described.

Strategy goals Themes and indicators- Ecoefficient use of resources- Maintenance of agricultural lands

1. Use of natural resources in production-agricultural land use-resource efficiency (TMR)-energy efficiency

- Minimising the risks of pesticide use 2. Pesticide use and risks- pesticide sales (kg of active ingredients per hectare)- environmental risk indicator may be later added to

monitoring system- Preserving the soil quality 3. Soil quality

- nutrient status (P mg l-1)- acidity (pH(H2O))- organic matter content (Org C %)- heavy metal content (Cd mg l-1)- indicators of physical and biological soil condition may be

later added on to the indicators- Minimising the agricultural loading 4. Loading to watersheds

- nitrogen balance at national and regional levels (kg ha-1

33

year-1 of total agricultural land; 1990 to present)- soil P concentration (mg l-1); phosphorus balance will belater added.

- Minimising the emissions 5. Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions- agricultural emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O), methane

(CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) and total greenhouse gasemissions in carbon dioxide equivalents

-agricultural emissions of ammonia

- Preserving the genetic resources- Promotion of domestic species

6. Genetic diversitydomestic animal diversity:- classification of the breeds and sub-populations within a

breed and information on population numbers- estimation of the effective population size of the breeds and

genetic distinctiveness of the breedsplant diversity:- total number of crop varieties that have been registered- share of key crop varieties in total marketed production- the number of national crop varieties, that are endangered

- Maintenance of diversity of wildspecies

7. Diversity of wild speciesthreatened species: number of threatened species in eachspecies group in 1985, 1991 and 2001birds: population change index by habitat requirementcategorybutterflies: population change index by habitat requirementcategorynon-cultivated plants: average species number and averagenumber of individuals per square meter by decade (1960s,1980s and 1990s)

- Maintenance of diversity of habitats- Care of cultural landscape

8. Landscape- habitat level indicator: edge density of fields;km/100ha per

Employment and Economic Development Centre.- landscape level indicator: openness in agriculturallandscape; ha per Employment and Economic DevelopmentCentre.

- socio-economic landscape indicator: utilisation of farmtourism accommodation in Finland ; %/year or month

- Animal welfare 9. Animal welfare- number of sentences for prohibited animal rearing- condemned carcasses in Finnish slaughterhouses

- Regionally diversified productionstructure

10. Regional structure of agricultural production- distribution of main production lines regionally

- Profitability of farming- Equal level of welfare of farmers

11. Income changes in agriculture- income changes- structure of total incomes- profitability

- Providing the societal circumstancesfor the occupation

12. Continuation of farming- investments- generation transfers

- Quality and safety of the products- Attention in food chains andtraceability- Adopting of quality systems

13. Quality management and assurance- number of certified farms (quality & environmental quality)- number of educated farms- number of quality contracts with external clients

34

Theme 1 Use of natural resources in production

The following indicators provide information on the agricultural resourceuse:

Agricultural land use

Definition and purpose

The environmental impact of agriculture is directly dependent on the landuse, and the land use also reflects the development trends of agriculture andthe overall vitality of the rural areas. The arable land comprises at presentabout 2150 thousand ha inclusive the 223 thousand ha of fallow. This isabout 7 % of the total land area in Finland. Since the beginning of the 1970the cultivated land area has decreased by about 25 %. Although there havebeen no marked changes in the total area of agricultural land, during the pastten years organic production has emerged as a seriously taken alternative tothe conventional agriculture. At the moment, organic production comprisesabout 7 % of the total agricultural production. With the incentives of growingdemand and the subsidies allowed for the transition period for organicfarming the share of the organic production is expected to increase also in thefuture. One of the goals of the Ministry is the preservation of the area ofarable land under cultivation or in a form that is easily converted back tocultivation.

Evaluation of the current indicators

In the various compilations of agri-environmental indicators land use or itsderivatives are in one form or other included (MAFF 2000, Agri-FoodCanada 2001, CEC 2001a, OECD 2001). The agricultural land use, exclusiveorganic production, was also among the earlier set of the Finnish agriculturalindicators (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1999a. Ministry of theEnvironment (2000) complemented the land use indicator with the data onorganic production and implemented it as one of the indicators of sustainableuse of natural resources.

Sustainability cannot be directly referred from the land use, but the data onthe area of conventional and organic farming as well as the share of thefallow from the arable land provide essential background information.Although there is evidence that organic farming is ecologically moresustainable than conventional, the evidence is not unambiguous (e.g.Grönroos & Seppälä 2000). Whether or not the changes in land use arecoupled with the development towards increasingly sustainable agriculture asreferred from the other indicators proposed in this report remains to be seen.

35

The methods and data requirements

Data on the area of cultivated land, fallow and organic production areannually compiled by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry 1983-2000). Cultivation of the energy crops hasbeen expressed as one of the goals of the Finnish Governments Program forSustainable Development. Eventually the area dedicated to energy productionis included within the land use indicator (see 3. Energy efficiency)

The responsible organisation for monitoring and updating the data is Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry. The possible correlation of the changes in use ofagricultural land with other sustainability indicators and its implications areevaluated by MTT Agrifood Research Finland.

Presentation of the results

The data on the area of conventional and organic cultivation as well as of thefallow are presented as a time series histogram. Eventually the area of energycrop production is implemented into the same histogram.

Resource efficiency


During the past decennia agricultural production has markedly intensified, in30 years the yields per hectare have nearly doubled, but the use ofagrochemicals and energy has increased almost at the same pace (Risku-Norja 1999). Inevitably these changes have also a considerableenvironmental impact. The problems are related to the biodiversity, themaintenance of the soil fertility, the eutrophication of the watersheds and tothe emissions of the greenhouse gases. The impact is not restricted to theagro-ecosystems, but has wider consequences, because the gaseous emissionsend up directly into the air and the surpluses of the nutrients and biocidesenter the soil, remain there or are subsequently moved into the watersheds orinto the air.

The basic factor causing environmental stress is the continuous flow ofmaterials from nature to the economy and eventually as wastes and emissionsback to nature. The material flow consists of the direct material inputs (DMI)or the material content of the final products as well as of the so-called hiddenflows or the ecological rucksacks. These are those natural resources that arenecessary at some stage of the production, but are not included within thefinal product. Together these comprise the total material requirement (TMR)of the production, which can be used as a crude overall measure on theenvironmental impact. This is because the extraction of the natural resourcesdirectly interferes with the functioning of the ecosystems, and because the

36

extracted raw materials are eventually delivered as wastes and emissionsback to nature. By reducing the volume of the extracted raw materials, theenvironmental impact is relieved both at the beginning and at the end of thematerials throughput (Bringezu 1997, Schmidt-Bleek 1994).


In recent years, TMR-based indicators have been vividly developed.Indicators such as TMR/capita, BKT/TMR, resource efficiency, resourceproductivity and material intensity have been introduced (Adriaanse et al.1997, World Resources Institute 2000. The benefit is often expressed inmonetary units. The indicators base on highly aggregated data, and they havebeen used to describe the development trends at the level of nation-wideeconomies. Similar approach was used in assessing the efficiency of the useof the non-renewable resources in agriculture in Finland (Risku-Norja 1999).In Sweden the possibilities of the food sector to realise the Factor-goals byimproving the ecoefficiency of the food production have been evaluated(SEPA 1999a). At the enterprise level, the World Business Council forSustainable Development has been active in developing similar indicators toassess the ecoefficiency of the enterprises (WBCSD 2001).

The methods and data requirements

The TMR, of course, is dependent on the extent of production, and moremeaningful information is obtained when the TMR is related to the totalproduction volume. Resource efficiency describes the benefit-inputrelationship of the production; the production volume or the Direct MaterialOutput (DMO) represents the benefits and the TMR the input needed toobtain the benefits. Improving the resource efficiency implies that the TMRis reduced without decreasing the production volume, which means that moreis produced out of less. This is also the essence of the ecoefficiency -concept,and therefore, resource efficiency can be used as one expression of theecoefficiency. The inverse of the resource efficiency - TMR/DMO - isanalogous to the product-specific MIPS –indicator (Material intensity perservice unit, Schmidt-Bleek 1998).

The extent and tempo of progress towards increasing resource efficiency canbe evaluated by considering the numerical value of the indicator to that of agiven reference year as a time series. The resulting factor is an expression ofthe change relative to the reference level. The approach may be helpful indefining the Factor-goals for future and in monitoring the progress towardsthe set goals.

The necessary data comprise the production statistics, the sales statistics oflime, fertilisers and biocides, the energy consumption as well as theagricultural import with the associated hidden flows. The data from various

37

sources are compiled annually by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.All data must be converted to tons. The total production volume as well asthe data on import inclusive the hidden flows, all converted to tons, areavailable from the compilation of the total material requirement of theFinnish economy, which covers the time range from 1970 to the present(Mäenpää et al. 2000). In assessing the TMR of agriculture the readilyavailable data need to be complemented with the hidden flows of theagrochemicals. A systematic way to assess energy consumption of agricultureneeds to be developed.

Monitoring requires continuous updating of the data, which should be doneannually. However, the changes in the efficiency of resource use becomeevident only over longer time horizon. The progress could be evaluated inperiods of five years. The goals for five years periods could be defined byexamining the tempo of change during the past 10-20 years. The responsibleorganisation for updating and monitoring is Ministry of Agriculture andForestry, evaluation and definition of the goals as well as the periodicrevision of the accounting system is done in co-operation with EnvironmentalResearch of MTT Agrifood Research Finland .


Graphic presentation of the time series data.

Energy efficiency

Definition and purpose: Agriculture in Finland is crucially dependent on thenon-renewable resources, mineral fertilisers and fossil fuel. These resourcesare gradually exhausted world-wide and, therefore, the production isinherently unsustainable. Besides the threat of the exhaustion of the non-renewable resources, their use contributes to the overall environmentaldeterioration as a consequence of extraction and processing the raw materials,and in form of emissions of the green house gases and nutrient leaching intothe watersheds.

Although the efficiency in use of the non-renewable resources has markedlyimproved since the beginning of the 1990’ìes, the efforts to close the nutrientcycles are restricted mainly to organic farming, and no serious efforts toextensively substitute the fossil fuels with renewable energy sources havebeen made. Undoubtedly the efficiency of the non-renewable resource usecan still be improved by technological innovations, more accurate targetingand timing of the cultivation measures and increasing co-operative orcommercial use of the machinery, but the basic requirement is effectiverecycling of the nutrients and substituting the fossil energy with energy fromrenewable sources.

38

In principle, the excessive leaching of nutrients in to the watersheds can bemanaged, and this is monitored with the long-term nutrient balances. As longas the fossil fuels are used, their combustion contributes to the greenhousegas emissions presumably leading to the global climate change.

In agriculture energy is used both directly for heating and in driving themachinery, and indirectly in manufacturing the fertiliser and biocides and themachinery. In 1993 the primary production, agriculture and forestry, used 34petajoules energy, which is about 8 % of the total energy consumption inFinland (Statistics Finland 1999a). Out of the total energy consumption inFinland the renewable energy sources comprise about one quarter, themajority of which is produced and also used within the wood processingindustry (Ministry of the Environment 2000). So far no data are available,how this share is allocated to the various production sectors. The renewableenergy is derived from various sources, the most important of which is woodand wood chips, but also sun, wind, water, earth as well as biogas areutilised. In future, the fossil energy may be to an extent substituted withcultivated energy crops such as e.g. coppice and mustard. So far there hasbeen only very preliminary research and development projects in this field(e.g. Laiho 2001). On the other hand, e.g. in some of the states in the USAthe obligation to substitute fossil fuel with fuel from energy crops has alreadybeen implemented (e.g. Sustainable Minnesota 2001).


Fossil energy consumption is a widely used sustainability indicator (MAFF2000, Agri-Food Canada 2001, CEC 2001a, OECD 2001). Also in Finlandthe urgency to develop methods to monitor the energy consumption inagriculture has been pointed out. Energy balances were suggested as onepossibility (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1999a). In the energybalance the sum total of the energy content of the various inputs, inclusivetheir manufacturing and the transports, is related to the energy content of theharvested yield (Korkman 1998). Calculating the energy balances requires alot of detailed data, and little is gained compared to more simple methods.The efficiency of agricultural energy use in Finland has been assessed byconsidering the total production volume and the direct energy consumption(Risku-Norja 1999).

Methods and data requirement

One of the goals of the Ministry’s strategy is to increase the use of therenewable energy sources, but without data the realisation of the goal cannotbe verified. There is, thus, an urgent need to systematically collect therelevant data. These include the amount of solar, wind and water energy aswell as the bio-energy (wood and wood chips, methane from biogas, energycrops) used in agriculture. The indicator is the share of the renewable energy

39

from the total direct energy consumption in agriculture. Eventually a simpleindicator showing the area dedicated for cultivation of the energy crops canbe used. As long as there are no data available on the share of the renewableenergy from the total energy consumption, progress towards more sustainableproduction is indicated by the increase in the efficiency of the energy use.

Data on the energy consumption by the various production sectors areavailable from the Statistics Finland. The rural business districts would mostconveniently gather the data on the use of renewable energy in agriculture.The responsible organisation for combining the data from these sources, forupdating and monitoring is Ministry of agriculture and Forestry, evaluationand definition of the goals is done in co-operation with EnvironmentalResearch of MTT Agrifood Research Finland.


Efficiency of the energy use is presented in a graph with time series data onthe yield per hectare and energy consumption per hectare. Changes in theefficiency are evident in decoupling the two curves. When data on therenewable energy use are available, the share of the renewable from the totalenergy consumption is shown in histograms. The area dedicated tocultivation of the energy crops is implemented to the histogram on land use(1: Agricultural land use).

Theme 2 Pesticide use and risks


P

Documents

Agri-environmental and rural development indicators: a proposal · 2002. 9. 26. · 3 Agri-environmental and rural development indicators: a proposal AnjaYli-Viikari1), Helmi Risku-Norja1),